cAos This forum is for the discussion of cAos Linux. |
Notices |
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
|
 |
01-21-2010, 05:30 PM
|
#1
|
LQ Newbie
Registered: Jan 2010
Location: Terhan
Distribution: Debian, Mandriva
Posts: 14
Rep:
|
Is it caos good for server?
I want to use a good distro for network server.
Redhat, CentOS and debian seem good. how about caos?
is it good for servers?
in official site write it's very light ans secure. is it true?
|
|
|
01-21-2010, 05:34 PM
|
#2
|
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2008
Location: Louisville, OH
Distribution: Debian, CentOS, Slackware, RHEL, Gentoo
Posts: 1,833
Rep: 
|
I'm passingly familiar with caos, but during the time I spent it seemed stable enough for a server. That being said until it has a longer track history, I'd still suggest either Debian or CentOS over it, they're a bit more conservative and proven and that's important in the long run when stability matters.
Last edited by rweaver; 01-21-2010 at 05:36 PM.
|
|
1 members found this post helpful.
|
01-21-2010, 05:41 PM
|
#3
|
LQ Newbie
Registered: Jan 2010
Location: Terhan
Distribution: Debian, Mandriva
Posts: 14
Original Poster
Rep:
|
thanks rweaver. is there any other distro for server? by server i mean network server, dns, dhcp, ldap and so on!
|
|
|
01-21-2010, 05:50 PM
|
#4
|
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2008
Location: Louisville, OH
Distribution: Debian, CentOS, Slackware, RHEL, Gentoo
Posts: 1,833
Rep: 
|
Sure-- There are slews of good server distributions:
SuSE (which I'm not fond of because I dislike yast), Ubuntu Server Edition, Debian (as above), CentOS (as above), RHEL (I prefer CentOS due to RHN), etc... it largely depends on what you value in your server distribution some people dislike debian for instance because they see it as overly conservative, it tends to not be up to date except right when its released and often then it's already out of date in many packages. Some people prefer rpm for packages and some prefer deb for packages. As long as you're not getting a distribution with rolling releases that provide long term support you should be fine in general. Pick a distribution and standardize down on it.
|
|
1 members found this post helpful.
|
01-25-2010, 04:37 AM
|
#5
|
LQ Newbie
Registered: Jan 2010
Location: Terhan
Distribution: Debian, Mandriva
Posts: 14
Original Poster
Rep:
|
I'm using Debian lenny for my developing workstation, it's great.
but about server i'm agree with you rweaver, i prefer centos too.
|
|
|
06-05-2010, 01:45 PM
|
#6
|
Senior Member
Registered: May 2010
Distribution: No more Linux. Done with it.
Posts: 1,238
Rep: 
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rweaver
Sure-- There are slews of good server distributions:
SuSE...
|
I don't think so. Suse is very buggy. How can people use it for serious servers? It's overloaded with modern "easy-to-use" stuff for beginners. And it's always SO "easy-to-use"...  Can server system be "easy-to-use"?
|
|
0 members found this post helpful.
|
06-05-2010, 06:40 PM
|
#7
|
Member
Registered: Oct 2009
Location: South America - Paraguay
Distribution: Debian 5 - Slackware 13.1 - Arch - Some others linuxes/*BSDs through KVM and Xen
Posts: 329
Rep:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Alex
I don't think so. Suse is very buggy. How can people use it for serious servers? It's overloaded with modern "easy-to-use" stuff for beginners. And it's always SO "easy-to-use"...  Can server system be "easy-to-use"?
|
perhaps if you get rid of that "easy-to-use-for-newbie" stuff, then you'll get a simple, robust and clean debian-slack-arch-like server system
|
|
|
06-07-2010, 11:45 AM
|
#8
|
Senior Member
Registered: Dec 2008
Location: Louisville, OH
Distribution: Debian, CentOS, Slackware, RHEL, Gentoo
Posts: 1,833
Rep: 
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Alex
I don't think so. Suse is very buggy. How can people use it for serious servers? It's overloaded with modern "easy-to-use" stuff for beginners. And it's always SO "easy-to-use"...  Can server system be "easy-to-use"?
|
Many installs, including redhat and suse, are far better if you strip them to the bare essentials. If you install the entire distribution, I can see where you would get that impression.
|
|
|
09-30-2010, 05:07 PM
|
#9
|
Member
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: 127.0.0.1
Distribution: Slackware/Ubuntu/CentOS
Posts: 286
Rep:
|
ive used bare minimum suse installs for a couple server roles and never had any kind of issues, ive gotten some flack for even considering using suse for any kind of server but i feel really comfortable with it and it hasnt failed me yet...
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:11 AM.
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|